open_payments_top_doctors

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it aggregates all individual payments per doctor, groups by doctor, sums payments, and sorts by total descending. This clarifies the tool's computation approach, though it does not mention limits, pagination, or response format.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second explains the aggregation mechanism, and the third gives the practical use case. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the 100% schema coverage and readOnly annotation, the description covers the essential behavior of aggregation and sorting. It doesn't specify the exact output structure, but for a list-returning read tool with well-documented optional filters, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already describes all 5 parameters with 100% coverage. The description does not add specific parameter-level meaning, but it does provide the overarching context that filters (state, company, specialty) feed into the per-doctor aggregation. This is baseline value, no significant enhancement.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Find the HIGHEST-PAID doctors by TOTAL payments received'. It also distinguishes from sibling open payments tools by emphasizing the aggregation of all payments per doctor, making it the definitive tool for ranking doctors by total compensation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a clear use case: 'This is the key tool for finding doctors with the biggest pharma relationships.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.